Gay marriage (split thread)

[c20H25N3o]

A victory for morality.

 

[geistkiesel]

Given your exceptionally low characterization of marriage, this really does seem like a personal thing you have against homosexuals. If you acted like you respected marriage, that would be one thing. But you don't seem to respect marriage at all, which I admit is quite puzzling.



You ... you speak for a whole lot of heterosexuals, c20H25N3o. When you choose to speak for a large number of people, though, you owe it to them and yourself to be more accurate in your considerations.

I don't care what you find disgusting. I think people with attitudes like yours being allowed to graduate past the fourth grade is disgusting, but that's actually beside the point. I think people with hateful attitudes like yours can be very disgusting, especially when you don't have a valid reason to explain your attitude. You seem to wish to deny people equality in society based purely on your own attitude, and one which you have a difficult time justifying.

Mystech and I both have attempted to explain to you some of the stakes involved in the issue of same-sex marriage, yet you continue to ignore those points and rail against gays because of your personal sentiment. This irrationality is also disrespectful.



The best way to not expose your child to what you find disgusting is to not visit it upon them. In other words, don't have sex with or in front of your kids. Not that hard to figure out, is it?



So you support a cycle of social discrimination? In a country that bases its equality on the concept of "Equal Protection" before the law?



Which is probably the reason so many heterosexuals are upset at the idea of a homosexual caring for the children that heterosexuals won't or can't.

Blaming a homosexual for the failings of a heterosexual is beyond perverse; it's stupid.

Consider that born-again Christians, for instance, have a higher divorce rate than others. (1)

Or that Christian churches marry people who have been divorced. (2)

So your references to God and judgment/salvation seem at least a little askew.

Making "love"?

Unplanned Pregnancy Rate:

• 1987 - 5.4%
• 1994 - 4.5%​

​

See CNN for the article from which those numbers come; according to a 2003 paper, the 1994 numbers are the latest we have a reliable figure for.

Compared to the birth numbers (live births), those numbers equal:

Unplanned Pregnancies:

• 1987 - 206,766
• 1994 - 179,055​

​

That's the product of the "love" you note.

1999 estimates (Jan. 1) showed 110,000 kids waiting to be adopted, as defined by children who have a goal of adoption and/or terminated parental rights.

110,000 kids a year without a loving home. It ain't the gays.

Of course, that's the problem you encounter when you rely on such an absurd principle as the social pendulum. Did you know there are more women in the United States than men? And yet our majority has minority status in certain issues because the law still does not reflect proper justice.

Ask around with some paranoid "angry white men", who worry that "minorities" now or will soon outnumber whites. Apparently, for them, it's good enough to fear that all the minorities are the same, and will rise up against whitey. It's kind of silly. I admit, but what these "angry" folks fear is that the pendulum will swing to the other extreme, and the oppression of old will be reversed entirely.

A friend of mine looked at an uncle on the white side of his family a few years back and countered that complaint with, "Don't you think it's about your turn?" Of course, we know that the answer is that it's never anyone's turn.

So why, in a society of equal protection, will you only offer your respect if a majority attempts to force it out of you?

I do, seriously, wonder about the sort of "logic" that demands oppression.

So we revisit a question once raised in this Ethics forum: Should gays, then, be exempt from a some of their social obligations (e.g. certain portion of taxes), since they are not entitled to equal protection under the law?

Gay people will adopt the unwanted children of heterosexuals. They will continue to decorate your homes and keep cultural arts alive. They will continue to work across the aisle or hall, or even at the next desk; and they will pay their taxes and continue to underwrite the loveless irresponsibility of heterosexuals. (Or, rather, some heterosexuals, but since the term "breeder" is oft-regarded as an expression of hate, and we can't necessarily call them parents, and you have chosen to rely on the idea of heterosexual "love", the generalization seems appropriate.)

In other words, gay people will continue to buoy the heterosexuals. Stop and think of a world without gays. The only real benefit we would get has already seen its potential expire; we might have gotten through the 1980s without industrial carpeting and track lighting in residential space, and we might have gotten through the 1980s without that repugnant combination of teal and mauve that mothers thought their sons looked so dapper in. Of course, in a world without gays, the "great" Ronald Reagan might well have decided to do something about HIV infection in the United States instead of letting his bigotry contribute to the power of a terrible disease.

And as much as I love Repo's rehash of the Carlin point, it's partially inaccurate. There's no shortage of women in the United States. Even if you were the last heterosexual unmarried man in the country, there would still be thousands of women to pledge your love to.

I guess I just don't understand what's so bad about homosexuals that we need to dismantle the proud core of the American legacy of equality.

Why do marriage-traditionalists rely on straw men and outright falsehood in order to make their case against gay marriage?

I really don't know where to insert this so I thought I'd just ask the next pretty girl that walked by if she is familiar with the following aphorism:

"Guilt. Although the most acute judges of the witches, and even the witches themselves, were convinced of the guilt of witchery, the guilt nevertheeless was nonexistent. It is thus with all guilt."
F Nietzsche

Geistkiesel

 

[Mystech]

I seem to remember God showing Paul a vision in which He declared everything fit to eat. I also remember Jesus saying "It is not what goes into a man that makes him unclean but rather what comes out of a man that makes him unclean."

See what I mean? Pick and choose. If one passage from the bible doesn't support your personal opinions, then just pick one that takes the other stance! It's so easy to do that we can often forget Jesus was a Liberal Jew who preached love tolerance and turning the other cheek. What a far cry you are from that message.

 

[Bells]

I do not want gay's around my children. I dont want my children thinking it is ok to be like that. It is not! Justify your dirty lusts all you like, tell us that you have a right to be filthy. I will not stand in your way but neither will I permit it when you ask my permission because in my Kingdom it is NOT permitted. Do as you will in your own kingdom, your kingdom of filth! But if you want to enter mine you must put your filthy lusts aside!

What would happen to your kingdom if one of your children is gay? Whether you allow them to be around gays means nothing. They will either be gay or they will not. They can't help who their attracted to. What will you do if your child tells you he/she is gay? Beat them into oblivion? Hate them? Banish them from your home? Kill them? You state you believe in God but you'd reject a child of God for being gay? Hell you've already stated in another thread that if your child disobeys you he becomes your enemy, I wouldn't put it past you to damage your child or banish them for being gay.

I actually can't believe you said 'your kingdom of filth'. Let me guess, in your kingdom all must submit to you. Your wife, children, family members who still talk to you. Pathetic really. Maybe it is best that you live in your own little world, because the rest of us are thankfully evolving beyond your hateful little mentality. You are proof of how the education system has failed in your country.

response by c20 - Indeed which is why I insist that gay rights are suppressed. It wouldnt be fair otherwise to those who obey God's commandments.

So the US Constitution is now God's commandments? You disgusting bigot! You insist that your fellow human beings have their rights removed and suppressed because they're not like you. You talk about other's kingdom of filth, when it is your own kingdom that is in need of cleansing.

response by c20 - more real like what? getting AIDS and dying? Forgive me for trying to show you there is a better way

It's not just homosexuals who get AIDS you bigot. STD's are not the sole domain of homosexuals.

response by c20 - God's judgement is more than enough for me Tiassa - He says homosexuality is an abomination. More than enough for me, trust me . And as for the Kingdom of Heaven, perverts are not permitted. Ever! Thank God hew:

God's kingdom and laws and teachings also permit genocide and massacres. So are we to expect that you have your weapons ready to slaughter the masses who don't believe as you do? The bible teaches that all life is created by God. All life. That is inclusive of homosexuals. Yet here you are denouncing one of God's creation as an abomination.

One always hears that we will be judged by how we treat our fellow man. Look at yourself bigot and ask yourself how you treat all your fellow man, homosexuals included. You're disgusting.

 

[Mystech]

It's not just homosexuals who get AIDS you bigot. STD's are not the sole domain of homosexuals.

Indeed, I don't understand why c20H25N3o seems to think that good Christians must be immune to disease. . .

As for AIDS being a problem only for homosexuals; this is tragically out of date Reagan era thinking. If AIDS could be said to be any one group's problem then it would have to be blacks, Africans in particular. But of course, being that no one is immune I don't exactly think it would be wise to view incurable epidemic diseases as someone else's problem.

 

[Bells]

Mystech, the likes of c20 like to equate their hate by saying that AIDS is a homosexual disease. It's one of their ways of justifying why homosexuality is bad. You're homosexual and you get AIDS... full stop. They fail to realise that the numbers of AIDS sufferers rises each year and the majority of the people falling prey to the disease are actually heterosexuals. The media in the late 70's and 80's perpetrated the fear and hate of homosexuals by reporting how the AIDS virus was affecting the homosexual population, but they failed to report how AIDS was just as, if not more prevalent in the heterosexual communities around the world.

AIDS is a global problem and the only way to prevent the spread of the disease is to promote safe sex, but again Christians have put paid to that idea, instead demanding that sex education be banned in schools and the promotion of safe sex ad campaigns be stopped. In Africa the problem is compounded by the way that the Catholic Church threatens Governments and other agencies with funding and aid cuts if they promote the use of condoms. They don't care that condoms can prevent the spread of the virus thereby saving lives, they only care that it goes against their beliefs. Amazing how religions that supposedly promote saving the souls of people can also sit back and prevent actions that would save millions of lives.

 

[geistkiesel]

Mystech, the likes of c20 like to equate their hate by saying that AIDS is a homosexual disease. It's one of their ways of justifying why homosexuality is bad. You're homosexual and you get AIDS... full stop. They fail to realise that the numbers of AIDS sufferers rises each year and the majority of the people falling prey to the disease are actually heterosexuals. The media in the late 70's and 80's perpetrated the fear and hate of homosexuals by reporting how the AIDS virus was affecting the homosexual population, but they failed to report how AIDS was just as, if not more prevalent in the heterosexual communities around the world.

AIDS is a global problem and the only way to prevent the spread of the disease is to promote safe sex, but again Christians have put paid to that idea, instead demanding that sex education be banned in schools and the promotion of safe sex ad campaigns be stopped. In Africa the problem is compounded by the way that the Catholic Church threatens Governments and other agencies with funding and aid cuts if they promote the use of condoms. They don't care that condoms can prevent the spread of the virus thereby saving lives, they only care that it goes against their beliefs. Amazing how religions that supposedly promote saving the souls of people can also sit back and prevent actions that would save millions of lives.

I dispute you numbers. For years when the press was referring to the AIDS "epidemic" the number showed a consistent 60% homsexuals between the ages aof 20 and 45 whitha deep ly committed lifestyle of drugs and sex, with aaveages of 300 sexualpartners pe year. Many with extensive histories of secxually transmitted diseases. No wonder theor immune system went south. ANother 30% were intravemous drug users. In both case this was their life. We were told he i9nravenous druggies "used dirty needles"

SIOnme studies on street walking prostitutes only showed AIDS among serious drug users.

The test for AIDS is a test for anti-bodies and he protein tested for is common to a half dozen diseases.
At one time, it may still be true, if you tested positive for cervical cancer and were HIV positive, you had AIDS.

There has never been an isolation of an AIDS virus to the exclusion of all other biological matter.

Dig it: The governements of the worlld have defined the cause and cure of AIDS. Judges routinely treat infection of one by another that is deemed purposeful as criminal assault.

There has never been unambiguous scientific proof that AIDS is caused by a virus, or is caused by any external invader of the human body, Ther eis more, Much more,

We all belive something about AIDS don't we?

The internet is a big place, google it.

 

[Mystech]

I dispute you numbers. For years when the press was referring to the AIDS "epidemic" the number showed a consistent 60% homsexuals between the ages aof 20 and 45 whitha deep ly committed lifestyle of drugs and sex, with aaveages of 300 sexualpartners pe year. Many with extensive histories of secxually transmitted diseases. No wonder theor immune system went south. ANother 30% were intravemous drug users. In both case this was their life. We were told he i9nravenous druggies "used dirty needles"

That's right, and if you only poll people involved in therapy then it sure does look as if homosexuals have a lot of mental disorders! There are all sorts of fake numbers like these floating around because of biased sources. Let me take a wild guess and say that whatever study (if there is one) that you are quoting was taken at some inner city rehab center?

 

[Bells]

I dispute you numbers. For years when the press was referring to the AIDS "epidemic" the number showed a consistent 60% homsexuals between the ages aof 20 and 45 whitha deep ly committed lifestyle of drugs and sex, with aaveages of 300 sexualpartners pe year. Many with extensive histories of secxually transmitted diseases. No wonder theor immune system went south. ANother 30% were intravemous drug users. In both case this was their life. We were told he i9nravenous druggies "used dirty needles"

Funny, I didn't mention any numbers for you to disagree with. You on the other hand have given us a plethora of figures from unknown sources.

 

[Mystech]

Funny, I didn't mention any numbers for you to disagree with. You on the other hand have given us a plethora of figures from unknown sources.

I'm mostly upset with the 300 sexual partners per year figure. I aparently have a lot of catching up to do. . . in fact so do most of my friends for that matter. . . do I know 300 different gay guys? Crap, I'm going to have to work out a plan to get this right next year.

 

[Bells]

I'm mostly upset with the 300 sexual partners per year figure. I aparently have a lot of catching up to do. . . in fact so do most of my friends for that matter. . . do I know 300 different gay guys? Crap, I'm going to have to work out a plan to get this right next year.

Hmmm yes... the average of 300 partners per year. You'd need to take speed to be able to achieve such a feat...

Lordy! At that rate most would be doubling back every couple of years and having sex with the same people again. Hmmmm... I wonder if those figures are factored in...

Although it's still charming that no sources have been given for those figures. Hell I asked my gay friends if they were amongst the '60%' and they said they're too busy having sex with 299 different partners per year to even contemplate reaching for the 300 mark.

For years when the press was referring to the AIDS "epidemic" the number showed a consistent 60% homsexuals between the ages aof 20 and 45 whitha deep ly committed lifestyle of drugs and sex, with aaveages of 300 sexualpartners pe year.

I'm wondering if those 'years' were the years that the press was also on a feeding frenzy trying to scare the general population about gays. Reagan will be turning in his grave that we now laugh at those figures.

The figures are probably similar for the 70's... only instead of homosexuals.. it was all those hippys, what with their 'drugs, sex and rock and roll'...